Jumpin the gun a bit there, screwtape? If you took the time to actually read my entire post, you'd realize the presentation of those links was mostly sarcastic. The point was that throwing links back and forth at each other is not a productive activity (neither is cherry picking any words you can find, devoid of context, that support your conclusion in said links).

I have lived in regions where 1)girls are circumcised but boys are intact (Africa) 2)almost nobody is circumcised (Latin America) and 3) only boys are circumsized (USA). Circumcision is not needed, causes health problems when done under traditional conditions and may interfere with sexual function. If people want to have their bodies pierced, clipped or snipped, they should do it when they are aware of the consequences, not as helpless infants.

I think the pierced ear analogy is valid. I did not have my daughter's ears pierced when she was a baby, even though many Af-Am and Latino parents do this routinely. (I myself did not get my ears pierced until I was an adult.) My daughter decided she wanted pierced ears and when she was twelve we let her get it done for her birthday present. She has since gotten another ear piercing. At least piercings close up if you don't want them.

We will not allow any other body parts to be pierced, because there are health risks. I also think body piercing on young people (teens and early 20's) looks pitiful and desperate somehow. Same with tattoos. But when she is grown, she can do what she wants.

For those who think circumcision or ear piercing of infants is no big deal because kids should conform to how others want them to look, would it be okay for parents to pierce the baby's genitals or nipple and put a ring in them because a lot of people think it looks cool? What about footbinding of Chinese baby girls--small feet are sexy, right? Breast implants in young teens?

Unless it is for bona fide health reasons, leave the kids' bodies alone until they are grown or at least old enough to weigh in on the decision.

I still don't get what the problem is. I'm circumcised, not by my own choice, and I'm still pretty awesome down there. So... The bottom line is that there's truly no "harm" done. It's not like clipping off each finger at the first knuckle. I know that mine is an unpopular stance, but I think this is blown way out of proportion. (And I strongly believe in religious freedom...even though I'm an atheist.) If circumcision ACTUALLY caused harm, then I would totally be against it. But I've not heard of any case where circumcision caused harm. If the parents don't pay enough attention to let the thing heal appropriately, then get them for gross negligence. If the procedure is performed improperly, then sue the doctor. THAT I can stand by. But this is just strong arming the religious (which, I guess, is just karma for them).

I still don't get what the problem is. I'm circumcised, not by my own choice, and I'm still pretty awesome down there.

inveni0, like I said to Barracuda, that's great for you. I'm glad you're happy part of your dick was sliced off, but there are those of us that aren't happy a natural part of our body is mising. The only half decent pro-mutilation argument being tossed around is "Well, we've been mutilating dicks since forever- so why stop now?"

They've been cutting off clitoral hoods, mutilating the clitoris, and chopping off vaginal lips for years in Africa. Barracuda's argument for male circumcision is, "Well that's the norm, why stop now?" and it can be applied to female mutilation as well. As long as it's safely done, why not chop that shit off?

I'm sorry screwtape it still doesn't make sense to me. I thought coming back to it later would help but it didn't. If condoms are good at preventing the spread of disease in low risk situations then it's safe to assume condoms are good at preventing the spread of disease in high risk situations right? If so, what couldn't the same be said about foreskin?

Perhaps it would help if you explained why too much help becomes a negative[1]? Are you saying this in the same sense as why they say you shouldn't wear two condoms? I think this is the part that I'm getting hung up on.

I may have to just stick with that analogy because so far it's the only one that makes sense to me. As I said previously this topic is hard for me to wrap my head around. I think I'm too culturally enmeshed to it.

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

IMO Male circumcision is purely cosmetic. There's really no need for it, any more than there is a need for babies to get their ears pierced. I'm relieved to finally have this issue of morality resolved in my mind. My unborn male son is now safe from me! (I'm not having any more babies so it's really irrelevant now but maybe I can protect my grandbabies's[1] foreskin in the way out distant future!)

I apologize, but it is not cosmetic. There are a lot of sexual nerves within the skin, which is a protector to the head of the penis itself. When you remove the skin, you not only remove the sexual nerves, but also since the penis lost it’s lubricant/protector, the sensitive part of the penis, being constantly exposed/rubbed on, calluses to a point where it becomes very hard for the male to feel pleasure from sex without heavy lubrication.

Because it's approximately analogous to using the guillotine to prevent dandruff. I'm exaggerating to make a point, of course, but you see what I mean?

I understand your words but don't think it's analogous at all. Perhaps the exaggeration makes it hard for me to understand your point?

1)Aids is very prevalent among both men and women in African populations. (Some researchers think that it might be a different strain of the disease than the Aids in the US because of how it transmits equally to men and women.)

2)Men in Africa tend not to be circumcised. (Women are, but that is not the point here.) There have been studies in Africa that show circumcision of adult men reduces the chance of the man contracting the virus. Surgery is a rather drastic step to take if there are other methods. Like just using a condom. But that is the point.

3)Because of many cultural and religious factors, Aids prevention measures like condom use, abstinence, monogamy and safe sex practices are not popular in a lot of African communities.

4)So, instead of waiting for the Catholic Church to say that condoms are not going to send you to hell, or trying to get men to stop behaving like they are entitled to sex no matter what the woman says, just circumcise the adult men. Boom. Reduces the transmission rate, and it is voluntary, not done on babies.

5) But changing attitudes about condoms and safe sex are better in the long run than doing elective surgery on all the men.

Ooohh! Well that's all anyone had to say! Thank you nogodsforme, that was very well outlined and easy to comprehend.

screwtape and pianodwarf neither of have to reply to my previous responses. I think I adequately understand what both of you were saying now. If nogodsforme didn't clarify either of your positions of course feel free to reply.

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Ooohh! Well that's all anyone had to say! Thank you nogodsforme, that was very well outlined and easy to comprehend.

screwtape and pianodwarf neither of have to reply to my previous responses. I think I adequately understand what both of you were saying now. If nogodsforme didn't clarify either of your positions of course feel free to reply.

I'm a college professor. I am used to breaking arguments down and explaining them clearly. I aim to please, in my own pedantic way.

Jeez Louise! My dog just came in after eating all the other dog's poop. This is truly foul.

I'm sorry screwtape it still doesn't make sense to me. I thought coming back to it later would help but it didn't. If condoms are good at preventing the spread of disease in low risk situations then it's safe to assume condoms are good at preventing the spread of disease in high risk situations right? If so, what couldn't the same be said about foreskin?

If the African study is correct, they have a correlation, but they have not identified the causation - the actual mechanism by which the effect works. In the US the rich are healthier. Better health correlates to more money. Is it because there is something inherent in money that keeps away illness? No. So that is not the causation. It is because rich people can afford better care and get it. That is the mechanism.

What is the mechanism that correlates lower STD transmission to circumcision? We don't know. But other variables could be activating that mechanism.

Suppose the mechanism is the foreskin retains fluids where infection can dwell and eventually invade the body. Circumcision takes that environment away. But wearing a condom already acts as a barrier so infected fluids do not accumulate there anyway. Or if infected fluid does penetrate the condom, the act of removing of the condom prompts the man to clean better. Thus the effect of the circumcision is diminished.

Let's make an analogy. Suppose a study was done and it concludes lower rates of skin cancer correlate to increased use of SPF. But the study was done on lifeguards who worked at resort beaches in Mexico. That does not mean SPF use is going to lower skin cancer in Swedish lifeguards who work at indoor pools. The Mexicans have more exposure and face a stronger source. And there are differences in melanin levels between the two groups. They are not apples to apples comparisons and the variables have to be accounted for.

IMO Male circumcision is purely cosmetic. There's really no need for it, any more than there is a need for babies to get their ears pierced. I'm relieved to finally have this issue of morality resolved in my mind. My unborn male son is now safe from me! (I'm not having any more babies so it's really irrelevant now but maybe I can protect my grandbabies's[1] foreskin in the way out distant future!)

I apologize, but it is not cosmetic. There are a lot of sexual nerves within the skin, which is a protector to the head of the penis itself. When you remove the skin, you not only remove the sexual nerves, but also since the penis lost it’s lubricant/protector, the sensitive part of the penis, being constantly exposed/rubbed on, calluses to a point where it becomes very hard for the male to feel pleasure from sex without heavy lubrication.

Really? I have to say, I haven't experienced this at all. I masturbate almost daily (sex less often now that I'm married...), and I don't even need lube... Could this issue be based on some other factors? Like the individual's body chemistry? (Also, my penis isn't callused...though it should be...)

I think the only argument on here that I like is that it's the same as circumcising females. That idea makes me cringe. I love vaginas...leave those things alone.

Also, for the record, we did not circumcise our third son because we no longer have a religious belief that "requests" it. But our two older sons are perfectly happy with their "modified" penises. So I don't have any bad feelings about it. Like I said, none of us have been mutilated to a point that the things are ugly to look at or non-functional...so... No harm, no foul on this end. But I won't circumcise again, that's for sure.

EDIT: Also, toward the argument that the child can decide for circumcision later in life, many people may not realize this, but circumcision is cheapest when the child is less than about 9 months old. Once they get older than that, they have to see a specialist, and that means big $$$. So a child (like my youngest son) may grow up hating his uncut penis but never having the money to "fix" it to his liking. A weak argument, but definitely something that is on the minds of the parents making the decision. At some point they have to say, "What do we think his decision would be?" And they have to make their best guess based on that. On the list of mistakes I've made regarding my children, I think circumcision is probably at the bottom of the list, and will be for the rest of their life.

Like I said, none of us have been mutilated to a point that the things are ugly to look at

How would you know? AFAIK you're not bisexual. How would you know what looks good and what doesn't when it comes to dicks?

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

So, I ask you again: how do you know? If you're not into dick, your opinion just sounds like a very poor rationalization.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

IDK OAA I think boobs are pretty but I'm not bisexual or gay. One can find the artistic beauty in parts of the human body without having a sexual attraction for the same sex. I say that as someone who likes to draw and paint portraits of women as a hobby.

IDK OAA I think boobs are pretty but I'm not bisexual or gay. One can find the artistic beauty in parts of the human body without having a sexual attraction for the same sex. I say that as someone who likes to draw and paint portraits of women as a hobby.

Heterosexual men, AFAIK, don't think dicks (in general) are pleasant to look at or pretty. It's mostly due to social conditioning, but that's beside the point. To me, inveni0's position sounds like a rationalization, akin to an amputee thinking that they're fine without whatever limb they're missing.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Heterosexual men, AFAIK, don't think dicks (in general) are pleasant to look at or pretty. It's mostly due to social conditioning, but that's beside the point. To me, inveni0's position sounds like a rationalization, akin to an amputee thinking that they're fine without whatever limb they're missing.

That I don't know. I have no idea what heterosexual men do or don't find attractive. But I also don't think I could assume based on my own opinions that all women find boobs to be pretty.

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

The evidence for the long-term public health benefits of male circumcision has increased substantially during the past 5 years. If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV risk by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention. Based on the medical evidence, banning infant male circumcision would deprive parents of the right to act on behalf of their children's health.

Even if those figures were correct, there is still no need to perform the circumcision at birth; the operation could wait until the child becomes sexually active - and could consent to the procedure.

IDK OAA I think boobs are pretty but I'm not bisexual or gay. One can find the artistic beauty in parts of the human body without having a sexual attraction for the same sex. I say that as someone who likes to draw and paint portraits of women as a hobby.

Heterosexual men, AFAIK, don't think dicks (in general) are pleasant to look at or pretty. It's mostly due to social conditioning, but that's beside the point. To me, inveni0's position sounds like a rationalization, akin to an amputee thinking that they're fine without whatever limb they're missing.

I don't find penises to be "beautiful". But, if you gave me twenty to look at, I could easily point at each and label them (in my opinion) decent or ugly. In fact, this very thing happens when I watch pornography. The girl can be gorgeous, but if an ugly penis comes into the picture, I just can't watch. It ruins it. My wife is the same way. She won't watch any porn with me if the penis involved is uncut. She doesn't like the way an uncut penis looks.

But my preference for not wanting to look at ugly things doesn't stem from my sexuality. Take movies for example. I can honestly say that Denzel Washington is a good looking man. (I'm sure I could think of others, but he just popped into my mind because I didn't want to say Will Smith.) It doesn't mean that I'm gay or attracted to them.

Your opinion of what I can or can not think about a penis sounds like the opinion of a 3rd grader in catholic school. I don't mean that to sound insulting, but that's just how it sounds. Very close minded and immature.